Shaykh Rabīʿ Bin Hādī: The Ḥaddādī Manhaj Does Not Observe Benefits and Harms In Making Tabdīʿof People

THE ASSOCIATE of Maḥmūd al-Ḥaddād, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, claimed that the Shaykhs of Madīnah, such as Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) were calling to a deviant political methodology in complete secrecy built upon the errors of Shaykh al-Albānī (رحمه الله). He accused them of being infiltrators, working on the inside for political objectives. He also claimed that they were following the ways of the Ikhwānīs by not making tabdīʿ of certain callers in Saudi Arabia. These Ḥaddādis had exaggeration in matters of tabdīʿ and tajrīḥ, aiming to incite discord and chaos within the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah. To support their claims, they attached themselves to well-known scholars in Saudi because they opposed Shaykh al-Albānī in various issues, and they leveraged this attachment to attack Shaykh Rabīʿ and others. Bāshmīl became the main promulgator, spokesman and caller to the ideology in the late 1990s. After them, came the second wave Ḥaddādīs in the 2000s such as Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, then Fawzī al-Baḥraynī and they carried on the methodology with their own infusions.

In his refutation of the Ḥaddādī, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hadī (رحمه الله) said:^[1]

Are you and Farīd [al-Mālikī] not the very close, intimate associates of al-Ḥaddād? Rather, you were the one throwing him into difficulties which he did not want out of cowardice and fear of their outcomes.

Did you (ʿAbd al-Laṭīf) not come to me with him (al-Ḥaddād) to debate with me about tabdīʿ of (certain) people in this country whom I refused to make tabdīʿ of, and you were insisting on their tabdīʿ and arguing zealously with me about it, and about the way of al-Ḥaddād himself, and I rejected that? And I said to you: “This is for the scholars, this is not for me. The only thing upon me is to discuss the errors of those (people), then after that, the ruling upon them is to be given by the scholars.” I explained to you the risk that this adventure (of tabdīʿ) would cause to the daʿwah.

I cited evidences for you from the positions taken by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and from the Sharīʿah principles. However, due to your intense enthusiasm for the Ḥaddādī methodology in tabdīʿ you would reject the evidences and the principles, especially regarding the benefits (maṣāliḥ) and the harms (mafāsid), and you would say: ‘This is the way of al-Ikhwān al-Muslimīn’, while al-Ḥaddād remained silent, and you took lead with argumentation and obstinacy.

Notes

01 Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī (رحمه الله) discussed and debated issues that al-Ḥaddād and his associates were trying to infuse into the daʿwah, which is hasty tabdīʿ of certain known personalities in the daʿwah (referring to the likes of Safar and Salmān). However, Shaykh Rabīʿ replied that making tabdīʿ is deferred to the senior scholars, and his duty is only to make their proven errors clear with evidences. He also warned these Ḥaddādīs the great harms that the adventure of tabdīʿ would bring to the daʿwah, and that in making tabdīʿ, one has to consider the benefits and harms. However, they would reject the Sharīʿah principles in this respect.

02 The errors of the Surūriyyah, Quṭbiyyah were proven and clear (takfīr of sinners and governments, inciting against the ruler, praise of heads of innovation, encouraging demonstrations), and they justified tabdīʿ, however, Shaykh Rabīʿ understood what these Ḥaddādīs wanted, so he deferred the tabdīʿ for the senior scholars.

03 This Ḥaddādī approach was continued by Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī, whom Shaykh Rabīʿ bin Hādī also advised, after he launched a war of tabdīʿ and taḍlīl against well-known personalities who had light errors, without consultation and referral to senior scholars, and without considering the benefit and harms. He denied these affairs as a matter of principle, claiming that providing the reasons for the tajrīḥ and tabdīʿ are not required, benefits and harms do not have to considered, and he enjoined taqlīd of his disparagements against others.

04 This approach continued with Muḥammad bin Ḥāḍī and currently, the flag of unwarranted, unjust tabdīʿ without evidence has been taken by ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī and his group who accuse Salafīs of being innovators and plants^[2] on account of affairs that do not warrant it, without evidence and without any consultation and referral to the senior scholars and consideration of the benefits and harms. These actions have led to turmoil, chaos, confusion, division and enmities among Ahl al-Sunnah, who are the fewest among the people.

05 There is a great difference between the scholars who are qualified to criticise and disparage and do so upon justice and fairness, and those following the way of ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Bāshmīl, Fāliḥ al-Ḥarbī and their likes which is to cut off a limb at the very first instance of perceiving danger, which may very likely just be imaginary, in their own minds, given that they are bereft of academic honesty and are characterised by treachery, deception and clipping speech. Indeed, those who resemble this way of al-Ḥaddād and Bashmīl made tabdīʿ on account of lies, distortions and fabrications and affairs that do not warrant criticism in the first place, let alone outright tabdīʿ.

Arabic text:

Footnotes

1. Majmūʿ Muʿallafāt wa Rasāʾīl (9/510).
2. Note: Some mashāyikh have described ʿArafāt al-Muḥammadī as a plant based on his suspect activities, complicity in sedition, conspiring to deceive senior scholars in matters of war and bloodshed, praising innovators, and splitting Salafī communities, just as the mashāyikh of Egypt suspected Hishām al-Beily of being a plant, based on his history, affiliations with innovators, and his activities which include insulting the senior Salafī scholars of his land and stirring up the issues of Īmān and Irjāʾ. As for accusing Salafīs of being plants for cautioning against the harmful medications of Ahl al-Kitāb and discussing their fabrications and exaggerations in affairs of medicine for the benefit and the well-being of the Muslims, as scholars have done in the distant and recent past, these are not grounds for accusing people of being plants. Rather, it is slander and oppression.